The American Lawyer

In-House at The American Lawyer: December 2001
We made a mistake on the cover of our October issue. We said that Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton had hired more than 30 African American associates between 1989 and 1996 and that none were still at the firm. That is wrong. Four African American associates from those years remain at the firm. We deeply regret this error.
The firm did not bring this matter to my attention. Rather, it was a lawyer knowledgeable about Cleary's associates who first told me about the mistake. After confirming the error, I called Cleary's managing partner to apologize and say that we would print a prominent correction. This is it. (A letter from Cleary's Peter Karasz appears here.)
How could we have been so dumb? It wasn't easy. We thought we were correct. Through extensive reporting and cross-checking, our reporter built his own roster of African American associates at the firm. We double-checked the list with Cleary lawyers and alumni. We asked Cleary lawyers why there were not any African American lawyers left, a backhanded way of putting the question. But we never asked the question directly to the firm leadership. We should have.
The error is serious because it may have caused pain, and because it undermines the credibility of an otherwise sober and balanced report. No one who read the story can doubt Cleary's efforts to recruit minority associates. Nevertheless, the partnership has not radically changed. The point of the piece was how difficult it has been to diversify the partnership, even for a well-meaning institution like Cleary. Some Cleary lawyers think we unfairly picked on them; no good deed goes unpunished. In fact, we chose Cleary because the firm has tried so hard. The partners made mistakes; they run a human institution. But it would be churlish for readers not to be sympathetic to their attempt.
I asked Alan Jenkins, who wrote the article, to respond as well. The full text of his letter can be found here.
Some pertinent excerpts:

Since "Losing the Race" appeared . . . I have received e-mails and calls from dozens of attorneys around the country. . . . From those often poignant, sometimes painful . . . comments, several important points emerge.
First, it is now clear that the article contained a factual error that requires correction. Specifically, four [African American] attorneys who joined Cleary between 1993 and 1996 remain at the firm today. Although a number of sources told me otherwise, ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the article lies with me, and I regret inadvertently misleading any readers on this point. Second, although this article focused on Cleary, the depth of response that I have received . . . makes clear that frustration with flagging diversity and retention efforts resonates across the profession. African American lawyers in a number of cities--some of them law firm partners--wrote or called to say that the experience of black Cleary alums mirrored their own experience; that the barriers they face, though often intangible, are real and very difficult to surmount. [Third,] a number of law firm managers (of various races) said that they appreciated seeing the perspectives of other managers struggling in good faith to diversify their firms juxtaposed with those of black associates. Almost all of those partners echoed the importance of focusing on retention and relationship-building as well as hiring.

Diversity is an important issue for the profession and for The American Lawyer. We will continue to cover it, fairly and more accurately.

Aric Press
Editor-in-chief

To subscribe, click here.